PhillyInc

Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie tells a Wharton business leadership conference that his management style is not to scream and yell, perhaps in contrast to fans and players. On the nature of sports business and losing: "Pain you have to live with." On salary caps and fan criticism: "Some of our worst decisions were the ones that were the most popular." On relentless sports coverage by media, including blogs: "It's all a plus. But it's so important to focus in on what it's going to take to win and win big and sustain it, and not what the chat rooms and popular opinion might be at the moment." On problem employees: "If you're working out your psychological problems and imposing that on an organization or employees, you tend to be seen right through." On granting Andy Reid a leave of absence: "If we're not there for employees at moments of crisis or need, why should they be there for us when we need them?" On business challenges for NFL: "As the game is distributed through the Internet, you have to control that content". Wharton audio/podcast is here.

Nothing angers the bloglodites more than "astroturf." (Our theory is that the reason blogs are so popular is that everyone likes using the lingo -- it's more fun than the actual content, as often as not.) And, then again, Comcast Corp. (NASD:CMCSA) has an ability to anger cable TV subscribers just on general principle. Combine astroturf and Comcast and it really gets to be juicily nasty.

Astroturf is a blog term for what appears to be an online grassroots movement by the people, but is instead a phony version of a grassroots movement created by the publicist. That's a no-no on the Web. In this case, it appeared to bloggers that Comcast was laying down some astroturf to defend its bargaining position with the Big Ten Network.

The Big Ten Network, which will officially launch on Thursday, promises to broadcast nearly three dozen Big Ten college football games along with dozens of college basketball matches and other sports. Comcast says that's a network for a niche audience of sports junkies and should be part of a sports package that costs extra for cable subscribers. Big Ten says that not only should its network be part of the basic tier package, but Comcast should pay it $1.10 per subscriber. Comcast said that's too high.

Big Ten fans have been howling -- in the blogosphere as well as everywhere else -- that Comcast is pricing them out of their passion. Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney has been on their side. But last week, an online commenter, labeled Victory4MSU20, trashed Delaney in comments posted on Big Ten fan Web sites. After referring to the "BigTen greedmongers," Victory4MSU20 urged posters to check out puttingfansfirst.com for the real story. That site is financed by Comcast.

A site administrator pinged (another great blog word!!!) Victory4MSU20 and found it came from Martin Waymire Advocacy Communications, a Lansing, Michigan public relations agency working for Comcast. Its job is to help Comcast to steer web crawlers to the PuttingFansFirst Web site. Yikes, astroturf! Major no-no, and Spartan Tailgate.com, the fan Web site for Michigan State, was not pleased.

Agency partner Dan Waymire told Multichannel News, an industry Web site, that the posting didn't come from the agency itself, but from an employee -- a Big Ten fan -- who was not aware of the agency's online policies. Waymire said Comcast was definitely not in the astroturf business and had nothing to do with the posting.

Hmmmm.

- Jane M. Von Bergen

You have to read all the way to the end of a light-hearted story in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday to catch this: insurance brokerage firm Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: PHLY), run by James J. Maguire Jr., is in negotiations to sell a unique kind of cancellation-insurance coverage to the organizers of the New York City Marathon next year. (This year's race took place yesterday, covered by somebody else for the first time). The WSJ portrays this kind of insurance as a new trend -- marathon organizers everywhere considering extra coverage because of a recent spate of race cancellations, which some people actually link to global warming. Anyway, not clear if this is actually a trend, or if global warming is the culprit. But WSJ writers Aaron Lucchetti and Liam Pleven do unearth this anecdote about NYC organizer Mary Wittenberg and Maguire:

At a pre-race dinner this week of blackened grouper and flourless brownies, she mentioned the new policy to James J. Maguire Jr., a marathon runner who also happens to be chief executive of an insurance company, Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. "We could have saved you some money," Mr. Maguire said. ... Ms. Wittenberg -- like the competitive marathoner she used to be (a bum knee sidelines her these days) -- says she plans to follow up with Mr. Maguire about his offer after the race. "The negotiations are on!"

By the way, unclear if Maguire actually ran yesterday. His name does not appear to be one of the many Maguires listed among the finishers.

- Thomas Ginsberg

Appearances deceived us. In our previous post about James J. Maguire Jr., CEO of Philadelphia Insurance Companies (NASDAQ: PHLY), we said he did not appear to be among the finishers of the NYC marathon. Turns out he did run, listed as Jamie Maguire, not James. He finished at No. 2284. But he was first among a half-dozen or so Maguires at a mile pace of 7:33.

Public funding of stadiums irks many people who aren't sports fans. What frosts me is when it is painted as economic stimulus.

Study after study of the economic impact of sports stadiums has shown them to be poor uses of public funds. Rick Eckstein, a Villanova University sociology professor who's written extensively about the phenomenon for more than a decade, has yet to find any such project that has revitalized an area.

But still stadiums are sold that way. Look at the New Jersey Devils arena in Newark, and the New Jersey Nets arena in Brooklyn.

Even if you assume that it's important to the image of a city to remain a four-sport city (football, baseball, basketball, hockey) and that somehow justifies spending what it takes to keep it so, how does that explain public funding for soccer?